jbg Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 Even the Alberta separation party looks like a failure; because they were more interested in getting elected then separation.And without being elected, they can accomplish separation how, exactly?And you didn't respond to the merits of my post. What a surprise? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted October 30, 2007 Author Report Posted October 30, 2007 And without being elected, they can accomplish separation how, exactly?And you didn't respond to the merits of my post. What a surprise? your post had no merits at all. You did not post any hansard record in response to my question. And how many elected have accomplished separation?NONE. When the sovereign people of any province vote to separate which dictator will stop the process? Have you a letter from the queen saying she will not honor her Statute of Westminster granting each province their right of self government? In a democracy the government gets its power from sovereign people. By a referendum of the people of any province that they want to separate. Quote
ScottSA Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 Queenslave has managed to unite the left and right on this board and make them of one mind as to the attributes of his...errrr...theory. Amazing. Quote
no queenslave Posted October 30, 2007 Author Report Posted October 30, 2007 Queenslave has managed to unite the left and right on this board and make them of one mind as to the attributes of his...errrr...theory. Amazing. It is not a theory. just the facts of others. http://www.detaxcanada.org/kuhl.htm Quote
jbg Posted October 30, 2007 Report Posted October 30, 2007 your post had no merits at all. You did not post any hansard record in response to my question.And how many elected have accomplished separation?NONE. It is my choice whether to use a Hansard or other facts. What some windbags say in Parliament is not the be-all and end-all of a debate. Where are your Hansard postings? When the sovereign people of any province vote to separate which dictator will stop the process? Have you a letter from the queen saying she will not honor her Statute of Westminster granting each province their right of self government? In a democracy the government gets its power from sovereign people. By a referendum of the people of any province that they want to separate. In my country, we lost hundreds of thousands of people over that issue. Black slaves were considered, by their "owners" to be non-persons, escept that they wanted them to be counted for voting purposes (though the slaves themselves couldn't vote). The odious compromise was to consider them 3/5 of a person for voting purposes. As the moral intolerability of this state of affairs slowly became clear, the Souith decided that they "wanted to leave". The only trouble was that they were part of the Unived States. The blood, toil and industry of th eNorth fought for the South's freedom from Britain. More recently, the North fought with the South in two wars that the South largely wanted, the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Thus, we fought, successfully, to prevent our country from fracturing into pieces. Is there any better reason that Quebec should be allowed to go? Wasn't it mostly Anglophone blood that moistened Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach so that De Gaulle could come over and scream "Vive le Quebec Libre"? Didn't Alberta receive, at some points, equalization payments? Hasn't Alberta benefitted from Canadian defense? Why is it that a region or province should have the right to leave when things are good, and shake a tin cup at the UN or its neighbors as an "independent" nation when the worm turns and things are not so good. How about if oil goes back to $20, and Stelmach has jiggered up the royalties so bad that AB is in the cr@pper again? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted October 30, 2007 Author Report Posted October 30, 2007 (edited) It is my choice whether to use a Hansard or other facts. What some windbags say in Parliament is not the be-all and end-all of a debate. Where are your Hansard postings?In my country, we lost hundreds of thousands of people over that issue. Black slaves were considered, by their "owners" to be non-persons, escept that they wanted them to be counted for voting purposes (though the slaves themselves couldn't vote). The odious compromise was to consider them 3/5 of a person for voting purposes. As the moral intolerability of this state of affairs slowly became clear, the Souith decided that they "wanted to leave". The only trouble was that they were part of the Unived States. The blood, toil and industry of th eNorth fought for the South's freedom from Britain. More recently, the North fought with the South in two wars that the South largely wanted, the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. Thus, we fought, successfully, to prevent our country from fracturing into pieces. Is there any better reason that Quebec should be allowed to go? Wasn't it mostly Anglophone blood that moistened Vimy Ridge and Juno Beach so that De Gaulle could come over and scream "Vive le Quebec Libre"? Didn't Alberta receive, at some points, equalization payments? Hasn't Alberta benefitted from Canadian defense? Why is it that a region or province should have the right to leave when things are good, and shake a tin cup at the UN or its neighbors as an "independent" nation when the worm turns and things are not so good. How about if oil goes back to $20, and Stelmach has jiggered up the royalties so bad that AB is in the cr@pper again? How about if Americans deal with their own political mess ; and let Canadians deal with theirs. You have not disputed any hansard record as used by W.F. Kuhl in his findings ; with your other imaginary facts. All you are worried about is if Alberta sepperated ; they would change the free trade agreement , and collect more taxes on oil co.. The Statute of Westminster gave each province their sovereignty; to do what they wanted. To have a democracy you first have to have free people; who then give the government its powers. If the provinces could not agree on a constitution for a federal government then they have the right as a sovereign province to keep their sovereignty. Legal the provinces don't have to separate ; they were separated as sovereign provinces by the Statute of Westminster. Provide your other proof , that the people of the provinces ratified any contract between then to form a federal government after 1931. What document have you and what copy of a referendum of any province showing the ratification vote? Edited October 30, 2007 by no queenslave Quote
jbg Posted October 31, 2007 Report Posted October 31, 2007 How about if Americans deal with their own political mess ; and let Canadians deal with theirs.I'm just pointing out why provinces cannot come and go as they like. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Posted November 1, 2007 I'm just pointing out why provinces cannot come and go as they like. Why don't you believe democracy? or are you saying the provinces are still colonies? You prefer the war method better? Quote
jbg Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 Why don't you believe democracy? or are you saying the provinces are still colonies? You prefer the war method better? Did you read my post that laid out the history of the US Civil War and why units of a country cannot come and go on a "heads I win tails you lose" basis? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
M.Dancer Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 Maybe he believes couples can unilateraly divorce without a settlement? There is this saying that quite frankly I can't remember pwerfectly. It goes something like never argue with a loon because to a casual observer, you can't tell the loon from the sane, since the premise of the argument is looney. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 Never wrestle with a pig if you don't want to get dirty. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
no queenslave Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Posted November 2, 2007 Did you read my post that laid out the history of the US Civil War and why units of a country cannot come and go on a "heads I win tails you lose" basis? Where is your Statute of Westminster- you were not given such powers. Pissed off because we did not have to fight a war to get our sovereignty and freedom, like the states.. Quote
jbg Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 Where is your Statute of Westminster- you were not given such powers. Pissed off because we did not have to fight a war to get our sovereignty and freedom, like the states..No, but you seem to be.You're making less and less sense. Maybe you should get help. You need it badly, unless you've had too much sauce. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 Where is your Statute of Westminster- you were not given such powers. Pissed off because we did not have to fight a war to get our sovereignty and freedom, like the states..My last response to the same post was a bit abrupt. This is a less off the cuff response.My own point of view is that the Brits spent a bloody fortune in the Seven Years War and the US Revolutionary War trying to rope down and control a land mass which was distant from them, thickly settled, more prosperous than them and no longer needing their services. By the time 1867 came around they learned how to gracefully let go. Canada was more divided and more thinly settled than the US, and there was both greater difficulty in and less reason to immediately develop the full-blown machinery of a new government. Thus, it made sense to commence an evolutionary process, from responsible government, to Dominion status, to establishing a framework of a separate army, embassies and citizenship and eventually full independence. Your ceremonial link to the British monarchy is about as important, from a practical point of view, as ours. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Posted November 2, 2007 My last response to the same post was a bit abrupt. This is a less off the cuff response.My own point of view is that the Brits spent a bloody fortune in the Seven Years War and the US Revolutionary War trying to rope down and control a land mass which was distant from them, thickly settled, more prosperous than them and no longer needing their services. By the time 1867 came around they learned how to gracefully let go. Canada was more divided and more thinly settled than the US, and there was both greater difficulty in and less reason to immediately develop the full-blown machinery of a new government. Thus, it made sense to commence an evolutionary process, from responsible government, to Dominion status, to establishing a framework of a separate army, embassies and citizenship and eventually full independence. Your ceremonial link to the British monarchy is about as important, from a practical point of view, as ours. Please explain what your ceremonial link to the British monarchy is? But Canada's link is a lot more than ceremonial. Quote
jawapunk Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 At the time of the seven years war, the colonies were NOT more prosperous than Britain. Britain didn't lose control of their colonies until after the end of world war two. America is not and was not the most lucrative colony nor was Canada. The tiny sugar colonies in the Caribbean and their holdings in India and the far east were far more strategic and lucrative than any North American colonies. You obviously have no grasp on history whatsoever making statements like that. Quote Leg room, there is none.
jbg Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 Please explain what your ceremonial link to the British monarchy is? But Canada's link is a lot more than ceremonial.Her attendance at our Bicentennial celebrations in 1976 (actually just before them) and her visit for the Jamestown colonization 400 year anniversary this past year. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 At the time of the seven years war, the colonies were NOT more prosperous than Britain. Britain didn't lose control of their colonies until after the end of world war two. America is not and was not the most lucrative colony nor was Canada. The tiny sugar colonies in the Caribbean and their holdings in India and the far east were far more strategic and lucrative than any North American colonies. You obviously have no grasp on history whatsoever making statements like that.I don't know where you get your history from, but the 13 colonies were far more prosperous than Britain at the time of the Revolutionary War, which started about 11 years after the end of the Seven Years War. And Britain lost control of the US formally in 1782.Who taught your history, those Peterborough, Ontario teachers I met in New York who didn't know who Montcalm and Wolfe were? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 3, 2007 Author Report Posted November 3, 2007 I don't know where you get your history from, but the 13 colonies were far more prosperous than Britain at the time of the Revolutionary War, which started about 11 years after the end of the Seven Years War. And Britain lost control of the US formally in 1782.Who taught your history, those Peterborough, Ontario teachers I met in New York who didn't know who Montcalm and Wolfe were? who indoctrinated you on Canadian politics? Quote
jbg Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 who indoctrinated you on Canadian politics?Not Kuhl. And not Rbacon. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 3, 2007 Author Report Posted November 3, 2007 Not Kuhl. And not Rbacon. what a pile of B>S> from goldy nobody is making you kill yours . Kuhl knew more about Canadian politics then you ever will. He had first hand information and all you got is government propaganda Quote
jbg Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 what a pile of B>S> from goldyWho's Goldiy? Huh? You're not making sense.nobody is making you kill yours .Kill? When did I say anything about that in these multi-threads on the same topice?Kuhl knew more about Canadian politics then you ever will. He had first hand information and all you got is government propagandaHis persuasive writing skills could use some work. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 3, 2007 Author Report Posted November 3, 2007 Who's Goldiy? Huh? You're not making sense.Kill? When did I say anything about that in these multi-threads on the same topice? His persuasive writing skills could use some work. your indoctrination needs reprograming; your mind is not capable of understanding anything but government indoctrination. Their is no hope for you. Quote
jbg Posted November 3, 2007 Report Posted November 3, 2007 (edited) your indoctrination needs reprograming; your mind is not capable of understanding anything but government indoctrination. Their is no hope for you.Meet me at Bloor and Yonge, in Toronto, on November 31, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. to start reprogramming. I'll have a turban covering my head. Edited November 3, 2007 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
no queenslave Posted November 6, 2007 Author Report Posted November 6, 2007 (edited) Meet me at Bloor and Yonge, in Toronto, on November 31, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. to start reprogramming. I'll have a turban covering my head.meet me in Red deer on feb 1 ; and make sure your turban is wrapped real tight; wouldn't want you to come unwound. How many government agents did it take to indoctrinate you? Edited November 6, 2007 by no queenslave Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.